Letters to the Editor

Military meddling

European Voice

3/27/02, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 7:46 AM CET

From Geoffrey Van Orden

The description of your tour of the EU military staff headquarters (European Voice, 21-27 March) was most illuminating. Of course, the nine generals, 57 colonels and 69 other staff, many of whom are first-class military officers, could be far better employed elsewhere.

There is no useful task that they are undertaking which could not be done at NATO, where detailed operational planning would in any case have to be carried out. There is no need for the EU Military Staff, or indeed for the EU Military Committee that it serves. All of the nations represented already sit around a NATO table of one kind or another. The essential difference, of course, is that the US, Canada and other key allies, such as Turkey, are excluded from the EU table.

And that is the worrying point of this misconceived exercise.

In regard to Turkey, I would like to clarify the situation concerning the current impasse over EU access to NATO assets which you also mentioned.

It is true that Turkey, a long-standing NATO ally, was concerned about an automatic EU right-of-access to NATO planning and other facilities which might be used for operations in Turkey’s area of security interest. These concerns were, to some extent, overcome in the proposed deal that was brokered by US and British diplomats in Ankara on 2 December 2001. The compromise, which included a security pledge and the possibility of Turkish participation in relevant operations, was apparently accepted by all EU member states except Greece, which is therefore the cause of any current ‘snag’.

Of course, none of this unnecessary complication and distraction from real international security tasks would have occurred if the EU had not started to meddle in defence matters in the first place.

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP

Conservative spokesman

on defence and security

Brussels

Nuclear friction

From Ari Vatanen

Only with Green eyes is it impossible to see the forest for the trees. Love for nature is being hijacked by extremists whose actions are ultimately self-defeating. In many governments small Green parties have cleverly imposed their views on the parliamentary majority. But they will not be around to feel the consequences. The victims are our grandchildren whose world we risk turning into a grim mix of desert and swamp.

Belgium has recently decided to rid itself of nuclear power. Instead Energy Minister Olivier Deleuze is increasing windmills by 350 GWh. Belgium consumes 80,000 GWh…it’s a new Belgian joke! The EU target of doubling the share for renewables to 12% in 2010 is already demanding enough.

Another topical discussion concerns the ex-environment boss Jim Currie’s directorship with British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). There is at least one obvious conclusion: level-headed people working for a clean future rightly see nuclear energy as an ally.

Europe can ill-afford the luxury of irrationality. In the EU 35% of all electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. Decommissioning costs are already included in the price of nuclear energy while fossil fuels have got off the hook.

How can the European industry invest if they cannot be sure of a continuous supply at affordable prices for decades to come?

By using nuclear energy we avoid every year letting 312 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere – equivalent to the emissions of 100 million cars.

For sure, we need to save energy by using more efficient equipment. But to meet the Kyoto criteria without nuclear energy we have to go to the pre-industrialisation era.

So what is called for? Every polluter should pay for his actions. Clean and self-financing energies deserve the pole position. Windmills don’t stay upright without the taxpayer’s money!

Nevertheless, we badly need research in alternative fuels and in even more efficient nuclear power. And lastly, my home country Finland should go ahead – as wisely proposed by the government – with its plans to build a fifth nuclear reactor.

Commissioner Wallström forgot her position when she advised us to the contrary. One day she may wake up to the fact that we have a green and prosperous globe – thanks to nuclear.

Ari Vatanen MEP

Brussels

Sweden and the euro

From Sven Ståhl

Dick Leonard’s analysis article (European Voice, 21-27 March) suggests Sweden is “back on the road to the euro”. In my opinion, this is not entirely correct.

Leonard reports that a Swedish committee of experts, appointed by the prime minister, suggests a budget surplus intended to prevent a foreseeable increase in redundancies. The writer also notes that the stabilising buffer fund, requested by the influential Labour Union and a condition for it to play the euro game, was turned down by the committee. The latter is a serious obstacle to a Swedish accession.

But Leonard did not forward the warnings of the committee that, by going into the EMU, Sweden would choose a risky way ahead.

Giving up its independence, the country would also have to sacrifice its right to use national interest and currency measures to adjust and compensate future fluctuations in economy and employment.

Furthermore, a joint background report by the confederation of enterprise and the labour unions suggest that sticking to the goals of the EMU can cause considerable costs to the Swedish society.

The right-wing economy advisor Lars Calmfors finds “severe risk that the common currency policy does not suit Sweden” and a third report finds that the public welfare is in jeopardy.

Göran Persson had obviously hoped for a smooth way ahead when he appointed the former deputy finance minister Bengt K Å Johansson, a Social Democrat, to head the committee. But the gathered expert members of the committee had integrity enough to refuse to act as tools for the government.

The findings of the committee are a serious disappointment to the prime minister as well as to the business groups. The conclusions were met with low-voiced comments or simply buried in the drawers by EMU campaigners.

Thus, the report cannot serve as the strong battering ram that was meant to break the concrete wall of reluctance amongst the people.

In addition, media have reported that Sweden has had a better economic development than the eurozone over the last few years.

But Persson in not giving in. He will continue to strive to be fully recognised by Europe as a political leader by putting Sweden back on the euro track again. Keeping unemployment figures down, rather than inflation, has always been high on the Swedish priority agenda.

Persson seems to have abandoned this policy for the benefit of the market, in order to be accepted by the Euro Club. As the good democrat he is he will no doubt help his people to vote correctly when the time for referendum on the common currency comes.

I am afraid that Leonard’s conclusion may be correct in the long term.

Innumerable expert warnings have little impact when higher interests are at stake.

Sven Ståhl

Stockholm

Word play

From Adrian Samuel

Excuse me for asking, but what was the point of publishing Michel Laissus’s letter on the translation of French and English idioms in EV?

(1) It was muddled, poorly written and contained at least three grammatical howlers.

(2) He is obviously suffering from a long-standing attack of wounded Gallic pride (dare I say ‘pique’?). Could it be because none of his previous contributions has been worth publishing, either in the original French or translated into English?

(3) He is wrong.

Craig Winneker’s use of the English idiom “you can’t judge a book by its cover” was an admirable explanation of the jibe that Jospin made at Chirac’s expense.

Far from being “a ‘for British only’ historical reference”, as Monsieur Laissus sniffily asserts, it is an idiom that is understood by speakers of standard English all over the world.

If Monsieur Laissus is not happy with EV being published in English, let him go away and found a French language newspaper to cover the same subject matter as EV.

Please do not allow your precious column centimetres to be used for futile debates on French translations into English.

As those of your readers who have studied French will know all too well, it is a subject that brings pedants and bores crawling out of the woodwork and should therefore be discouraged.

Adrian Samuel

Overijse

Belgium

Editor’s note: In the interests of fair play and the entente cordiale, we cannot resist pointing out that the original of your letter included three basic spelling errors!

Although not a supporter of the Irish minister for finance, I have lived the best part of my life in the same constituency as his and am not familiar with such quaint colloquialisms as “out with the washing” or “behind in the backwater”.

I receive ‘Paddy’ jokes by email regularly which can be funny but jibes like this are humourless and segregable and not what I would imagine should be in harmony with the philosophy of European Voice.

Moira King

Brussels

Editor’s note: The colloquialisms were indeed uttered by the Irish minister for finance, Charlie McCreevy – we have them on tape. Entre Nous is not supposed to be taken too seriously, but we are sorry for causing offence in this case.

Fighting the fog

From David Monkcom

Well done for calling on the Convention secretariat to issue regular ‘communications’ (European Voice, 21-27 March).

They must also be clear and simple, using the language of ordinary people, if we are ever going to re-connect the EU with its citizens. That is why a growing number of us in the European Commission are campaigning to ‘fight the fog’. We believe clarity is an absolute priority, and I have urged colleagues working with the Convention to make it theirs too. Please help by keeping up the press pressure. Thanks!

In fact, the Commission appointed Jules Muis, former vice-president of the World Bank, as its head of the Internal Audit Service, initially as deputy director-general because the Service was not then independent. If you care to check R&D’s website (www.renouveau.org) you will see that they refer to the post of deputy director-general. If my name appeared in their crystal ball, then perhaps their record is not as good as they suggest.

So much for your journalistic ‘clairvoyance’.

Antony Wright

Director-Deputy Head of Service

Internal Audit Service

European Commission

Brussels

Human rights in Nigeria

From Dana Scallon

Many thanks to all of you who took action on the Nigerian case of Mrs Safiya Huseini. Your contribution was very helpful for Nigerians to know that Europeans are caring of such cases, and to let the Nigerian court make its own decision. Many thanks to Mr Kurlemann, the head of the EP Human Rights Division, who is carefully monitoring these cases.

Unfortunately there are similar cases pending in this country for which we urge your continuing support.